Israelis are right to demand answers after October 7. The Hamas massacre was not only the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust; it was a shattering breach of trust between the state and its citizens. A nation built on the promise of “never again” must confront how its defenses failed so catastrophically—and do so in a way that strengthens, rather than fractures, Israeli democracy.
That is why the debate over how to investigate October 7 matters as much as the investigation itself.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now agreed that an inquiry is necessary. The disagreement lies in the mechanism: a parliamentary commission overseen by lawmakers and the government, versus a traditional state commission of inquiry led by the judiciary. Supporters of the former argue it better reflects the diversity of Israeli society; critics fear it risks politicizing truth.
Both sides share a legitimate concern. Israel is a democracy under extraordinary strain—still absorbing trauma, still burying its dead, still reckoning with the consequences of a war forced upon it by Hamas. Accountability cannot become a proxy battle in an election year. Nor can it be delayed or diluted out of political convenience.
History offers guidance. After the Yom Kippur War and other national crises, Israel established independent state commissions—empowered to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony—precisely to ensure public trust in the findings. These inquiries were painful. They exposed errors by generals and politicians alike. But they also helped restore confidence in Israel’s institutions and recalibrate its security doctrine.
Public opinion today is unmistakable: most Israelis want a genuinely independent investigation. That consensus cuts across ideological lines. It includes families of victims, reservists, and voters from both coalition and opposition. When former prime minister Naftali Bennett pledges to establish a state commission, he is channeling a widely held conviction that credibility matters as much as competence.
At the same time, the government’s insistence that everything be examined—from intelligence failures to long-term policy assumptions—should not be dismissed. October 7 did not emerge in a vacuum. Israelis deserve a full accounting that scrutinizes strategic doctrine, civil-military coordination, and decision-making across multiple governments and institutions.
The answer, then, is not evasion but elevation: a commission that is independent in law, broad in mandate, and inclusive in consultation. Judicial leadership—long the gold standard for such inquiries—need not preclude transparency or public input. Nor should parliamentary oversight become a substitute for impartial fact-finding.
Israel’s enemies are watching. They would relish a process that appears self-serving or fractured. Israel’s allies are watching too, looking for evidence that the Jewish state can confront its failures with honesty and moral seriousness. An inquiry worthy of October 7 would send a powerful message to both: that Israel’s democracy is not a weakness to be exploited, but a strength that endures—even after catastrophe.
Justice for the victims, accountability for leaders, and lessons for the future are not partisan demands. They are Zionist imperatives.